Who is the best hockey player to play pro baseball?

Wasn't there a hockey player who pitched for the Angels? I'm having trouble coming up with the name.

As a career-leaning voter, I will have Glavine ahead of Schilling and Mussina. I'm not quite sure what I'll do with Smoltz yet - depends on valuing the relief years. But in any case, I don't see Smoltz going ahead of Glavine. I have Glavine's career RA+ equivalent record as 284-206, with Schilling at 227-135 and Mussina at 236-147. All of them have some big years, with Schilling doing the best on that score.

Top 8 equivalent years:

Glavine: 19-7, 18-9, 17-9, 17-9, 17-10, 17-10, 16-9, 15-9

Schilling: 21-8, 20-9, 19-10, 18-8, 17-8, 18-10, 13-5, 15-9

Mussina: 19-8, 18-8, 17-8, 17-10, 16-9, 14-5, 16-8, 14-8

Smoltz: 19-9, 18-11, 17-9, 16-9, 14-7, 14-8, 13-8, 12-6

Glavine's hitting shouldn't be overlooked as part of his value. He was consistently a few runs better than the average pitcher. Add an extra half-win to his value in a few of his peak seasons - which his hitting indeed provided - and Glavine probably moves to the front of his tier of HoF pitchers (Schilling, Mussina, Smoltz, Brown).

Glavine is, in some ways, the Pud Galvin of his time. His rates aren't that high but he pitched one whole lot of innings. I'm not sure where I'm going to slot him onto my ballot, but I believe that Galvin was at least a middle-circle HoMer. The bat doesn't exactly hurt, too. And I think, although I'm not sure, that he was an above-average defensive pitcher, although I would not want to try to defend this at voting time. I still have analysis of that to do. - Brock Hanke

Don't think of Glavine as peakless. Those top 8 single seasons I've listed above aren't bad at all. It's more peak than Sutton or Ryan. (Yes, Schilling's peak is a little higher.)

Since I focus on RA+, I don't think about pitchers' defense at all, since it's baked in to that anyway.

Was Kirk McCaskill the hockey player I was trying to think of? Or did I get that wrong?

#5 Yeah McCaskill got as far as the AHL (AAA equivalent) in hockey. He dressed for one NHL game but didn't make it into the game.

His collegiate career is pretty impressive. Senior year went 8-0 with an 0.97 era, scored 26 goals and 22 assists in 17 hockey games and led the varsity soccer team in goal scoring.

An obvious HOFer. Provided a ton of value with any number of peak seasons to choose from.

I'm as shocked as the next guy that he succeeded with such a low K rate - managing to hold home runs down - but, then, I'm shocked that Mariano Rivera has managed a 200 ERA+ with just one pitch.

(Side note: everyone points to him getting called strikes two inches off the plate, but his K rate of just 5.3 per 9 doesn't really scream that he was getting an undue amount of strike calls or really succeeding from striking people out; in fact, as I said above, it seems he succeeded _despite_ a mediocre K rate.)

He's kind of a rare bird among the '90s HOF group: He was closer to the innings of Clemens/Maddux/Johnson than the others, but he didn't have their success; he had more innings than Schilling/Brown/Smoltz/Mussina, but his rate of performance wasn't as good.

An interesting spate of comments from BP:

1996

One of the most cerebral players in the game. He lacks a single dominant pitch, doesn't have great control, gives up a hit an inning, doesn't hold runners on particularly well, and has always had trouble getting out left-handed hitters, a very unusual trait for a southpaw. With all that, he's been one of baseball's best starters throughout the decade. Glavine's the kind of player who could pitch into his 40's relying on nothing more than savvy and guile. Some might argue he already is.

1997

The Mike Mussina of the National League. Consistently enjoys the largest strike zone I’ve ever seen, and more power to him. Works the outside 5" of the zone masterfully, and seldom, if ever, gives in... The most likely of the big three to implode.

1998

Remains the Atlanta starter most likely to “go Mulholland.” Fair or not, much of Glavine’s success has come from exploiting umpires who call pitches six inches outside “strikes.” The day that pitch becomes a ball again, Glavine loses a big chunk of his value. Not only will he then have to get hitters out in a conventional fashion, but he’ll have to unlearn on the fly a way of pitching he’s grown accustomed to.

1999

Everyone whines about all the help he gets from the umpires, and it’s certainly a valid point. But Glavine is a wonderful pitcher, and what seems to be missed is that he underwent a career transition - a mid-life crisis of sorts - from 1993 to 1995, as his K/BB ratios dropped ominously and his ERA spiked upwards. But he altered his style, becoming more of a groundball pitcher, and he’s pitching as well as he ever has... With 173 wins, four 20-win seasons and 2 Cys, he’s well on target for the Hall of Fame.

His change up was dominent. BP spent a decade plus predicting his demise then blamed the umps when they were wrong every year. Pretty useless.

An obvious HOFer. Provided a ton of value with any number of peak seasons to choose from. ...

He even provided value to the Braves while pitching for the Mets. :-)

(Side note: everyone points to him getting called strikes two inches off the plate, but his K rate of just 5.3 per 9 doesn't really scream that he was getting an undue amount of strike calls or really succeeding from striking people out; in fact, as I said above, it seems he succeeded _despite_ a mediocre K rate.)

Shea had QuesTec and Turner Field did not IIRC.

Glavine gave the Mets 14.3 WAR over 5 years as an old pitcher, including 17 excellent innings in the 2006 postseason.

Glavine gave the Mets 14.3 WAR over 5 years as an old pitcher, including 17 excellent innings in the 2006 postseason.

And the worst game ever.

bump